C.A. Nos.917-918 etc.                                                                                                   Page 1 of 11    

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA  

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION  

CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 917-918 OF 2010  

Committee of Management    ... Appellant   

Versus  

The Director of Higher Education & Ors.                ... Respondents  

WITH  

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 919 OF 2010  

J U D G M E N T  

Madan B. Lokur, J.  

1. The primary question for consideration is whether Dr. Ramesh  

Chandra Mishra, Dr. Ravindra Nath Mishra and Dr. Bachau Prasad  

Pathak (the respondents) were appointed as ad hoc Lecturers with the  

Lala Laxmi Narain Degree College, Sirsa, Allahabad (for short the  

College).  In our opinion, the answer is in the negative and for this  

reason, the appeals must be allowed.  

Facts  

2. On 12 th  January, 1988 an advertisement was issued by the College  

for appointment to the post of Lecturers.  It was stated in the  

advertisement that the appointment would be on an ad hoc basis and that

                C.A. Nos.917-918 etc.                                                                                                   Page 2 of 11    

the application for appointment should be received by the College on or  

before 31 st  January, 1988.  

3. There is no dispute that the respondents did not apply in terms of  

the advertisement dated 12 th

January, 1988.  However, much later, each  

of them submitted a letter on different dates between August 1988 and  

December 1989 to the effect that they had come to know that a post of a  

part-time Lecturer is lying vacant in the College and as such they may be  

considered for appointment against the part-time post. The College  

considered and accepted the application sent by the respondents and they  

were appointed to the post of part-time Lecturer for a fixed period of  

three months on a fixed salary. They continued as such till the end of  

April 1990.  

4. After the period of appointment was over, the respondents filed  

Writ Petition No. 35210 of 1991 in the Allahabad High Court for a  

declaration that they are ad hoc Lecturers and that they should be paid  

appropriate salary as ad hoc Lecturers.  

5. In response, the submission made by the College to the writ  

petition was that the respondents had not been appointed against any  

advertisement, that they were only part-time Lecturers and that they had  

not been working from May 1990 onwards.  

6. The writ petition was disposed of by the High Court by a judgment  

and order dated 21 st  August, 1995.  We have gone through the decision

                C.A. Nos.917-918 etc.                                                                                                   Page 3 of 11    

rendered by the High Court and it appears to us that the High Court  

proceeded on the erroneous basis that the appointment of the respondents  

to the post of part-time Lecturers was made pursuant to the advertisement  

dated 12 th

January, 1988. Proceeding on this erroneous basis, the High  

Court expressed the view that the respondents were entitled to the pay  

scale as applicable to the ad hoc appointees and not to part-time  

Lecturers.  

7. The High Court also adverted to the provisions of the Uttar Pradesh  

Higher Education Services Commission Act, 1980 (for short the Act) and  

directed the Directorate of Higher Education to enquire into the payment  

of salary to the respondents as ad hoc Lecturers and to take steps for  

payment of outstanding salary to them.  The High Court noted the view of  

the College that the respondents were not functioning since May 1990  

and also that this was disputed by the respondents.  Finally, the direction  

given to the Directorate of Higher Education was to dispose of the entire  

matter within a period of two months in the light of the submissions  

made.  The operative portion of the judgment and order dated 21 st   

August, 1995 passed by the High Court and which was discussed in detail  

before us reads as follows:  

“Further the petitioners moved an application on 27.4.92 for  

payment of salary for the period after 30.4.90 supported by  

certificate from Principal of College showing that petitioners had  

actually worked as lecturers even after 30.4.90.  This fact has not  

been controverted by the respondents as such, is accepted as fact.  

                C.A. Nos.917-918 etc.                                                                                                   Page 4 of 11    

The other claims and counter claims made by the petitioners and  

the college authorities cannot be decided in the summary  

jurisdiction.  

We, therefore, direct the Director of Higher Education to enquire  

into the matter of payment of salary to the petitioners as ad hoc  

lecturers and take steps for payment of outstanding salary to the  

petitioners. According to the respondents they are not functioning  

since the month of May, 1990, which is however, being disputed  

by the learned Advocate for the petitioners. The Director of  

Higher Education is further directed to give personal hearing to  

the petitioners in the matter of payment of salary to the  

petitioners.  It is only upon the hearing of the petitioners he shall  

pass necessary orders. The College Authorities are further  

directed to take into consideration the candidature of the  

petitioners who have rendered service from 1989 to April, 1990  

according to the respondents in the case of filling up the future  

vacancies as a special case, if there exists any regular vacancies.   

It is desired that the Director of Higher Education will dispose of  

the entire matter within a period of two months from the date of  

the production of a certified writ petition.”   

8. In compliance with the order passed by the High Court, the  

Director in the Directorate of Higher Education passed a detailed order on  

6 th

August, 1996. It was held that the respondents had not applied in  

terms of the advertisement dated 12 th

January, 1988.  It was also held that  

the respondents had been appointed as part-time Lecturers only and there  

was no provision in the Act to regularise the services of part-time  

Lecturers. It was also held that there was nothing on record to suggest  

that the respondents had put in any work with the College from May 1990  

onwards or that their appointment was extended beyond April 1990.  

9. Feeling aggrieved by the order passed by the Director on 6 th   

August, 1996, the respondents filed Writ Petition No. 27057 of 1996

                C.A. Nos.917-918 etc.                                                                                                   Page 5 of 11    

challenging the said order.  During the pendency of this writ petition, the  

Special Secretary, Government of Uttar Pradesh passed an order on 8 th   

September, 1997 to the effect that the respondents should be considered  

to have been appointed as ad hoc Lecturers; that they should be  

considered to have been continuously working after April 1990 and  

finally their regularization should be considered. It was added that the  

payment of salary to these respondents should be made by the College  

from their own resources.    

10. Feeling aggrieved by the order dated 8 th

September, 1997 the  

College filed Writ Petition No. 33357 of 1997.    

11. Both these writ petitions, that is Writ Petition No. 27057 of 1996  

and Writ Petition No. 33357 of 1997 came to be heard and disposed of by  

the High Court by a judgment and order dated 12 th

November, 1998. The  

writ petition filed by the respondents was allowed while the writ petition  

filed by the College was dismissed by the High Court.  

12. Being aggrieved, the College preferred two petitions for special  

leave to appeal in this Court which were admitted for final hearing and  

numbered as Civil Appeal Nos. 7224-7225 of 1999.  

13. The Civil Appeals filed by the College were disposed of by this  

Court by an order dated 16 th

April, 2003.  It was held that the order dated  

8 th

September, 1997 issued by the Special Secretary could not be  

sustained and the High Court was in error in upholding that order.  

                C.A. Nos.917-918 etc.                                                                                                   Page 6 of 11    

Accordingly, it was held that Writ Petition No. 33357 of 1997 filed by the  

College challenging the order dated 8 th

September, 1997 deserves to be  

allowed. It was also held that insofar as Writ Petition No. 27057 of 1996  

is concerned (wherein the order dated 6 th

August, 1996 was challenged by  

the respondents) it deserved to be heard afresh by the High Court and  

accordingly the said writ petition was remanded to the High Court for a  

fresh hearing in accordance with law.  Both the Civil Appeals were  

disposed of on the above basis.  

14. Strangely enough while both the Civil Appeals were pending in  

this Court, the Secretary, U.P. Government passed an order dated 26 th   

February, 2001 once again regularising the services of the respondents  

and fixing their pay. This order was challenged by the College by filing  

Writ Petition No. 12748 of 2004. By the impugned judgment and order  

dated 1 st  November, 2004 the High Court remanded the matter relating to  

the regularization of the respondents to the Director of Education for  

passing a speaking order after considering the provisions of Section 31- C  

of the Act.   

15. It may be noted that in the meanwhile, pursuant to some other and  

unconnected regular selection process, the College had already regularly  

engaged some Lecturers including one of the respondents. The High  

Court directed that in case the respondents are regularised pursuant to

                C.A. Nos.917-918 etc.                                                                                                   Page 7 of 11    

judgment and order dated 1 st  November, 2004 then the candidates  

selected by the regular process may have to be adjusted elsewhere.  

16. Against both the directions of the High Court, the College  

preferred Civil Appeal Nos. 917-918 of 2010 while regularly selected  

candidates also challenged the judgment and order dated 1 st  November,  

2004 since they would be directly affected.  The appeal filed by the  

regularly selected Lecturers is Civil Appeal No.919 of 2010.  

17. By an order dated 28 th  February, 2005 this Court granted an interim  

stay of the impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court. On  

14 th  May, 2009 this Court modified the interim order passed on 28

th   

February, 2005 by requiring a report to be filed whether the respondents  

fulfil the requirements of Section 31- C of the Act.  

18. In compliance with the order dated 14 th  May, 2009 the Director of  

Higher Education passed an order on 1 st  December, 2009 to the effect that  

the respondents “who were appointed as part-time teachers, substantially  

fulfil the requirements of Section 31(C) of the U.P. Higher Education  

Service Commission Act, 1980.”  

19. A reading of the order dated 1 st  December, 2009 gives a clear  

indication that even as recently as 2009 the Director of Higher Education  

was of the view that the appointment of the respondents was only on a  

part-time basis and not on an ad hoc basis. Since the respondents were  

not appointed on an ad hoc basis (even if they fulfilled the requirements

                C.A. Nos.917-918 etc.                                                                                                   Page 8 of 11    

of Section 31-C of the Act), they had no right to be regularized since they  

were not so appointed.  

20. On these broad facts, we heard all the affected parties on the merits  

of the case.  

Findings   

21. In our opinion, the High Court erred in taking the view that it did.   

There is absolutely no doubt that the respondents had not applied for the  

post of ad hoc Lecturer pursuant to the advertisement dated 12 th  January,  

1988. On the contrary, the respondents moved independent applications  

to the effect that they had come to know through reliable sources that the  

post of a part-time Lecturer was available.  It is on the basis of these  

applications that the respondents were appointed on a part-time basis for  

a fixed period by the College and on a fixed salary. There is absolutely no  

question of the respondents having been appointed on an ad hoc basis or  

on any basis other than part-time or pursuant to the advertisement dated  

12 th  January, 1988.  The High Court completely overlooked this aspect of  

the matter.  

22. The provisions of the Act also do not come to the rescue of the  

respondents.  Section 16 and Section 31-C of the Act were placed before  

us for consideration. These provisions read as follows:  

“16. Appointment of ad hoc teachers.- (1) Where the  

management has notified a vacancy to the Commission in  

accordance with sub-section (2) of Section 12, and the

                C.A. Nos.917-918 etc.                                                                                                   Page 9 of 11    

Commission fails to recommend the names of suitable candidates  

in accordance with sub-section (1) of that section within three  

months from the date of such notification, the management may  

appoint a teacher on purely ad hoc basis from amongst the  

persons holding qualification prescribed therefor.  

(2) xxx xxx xxx”  

“31-C. Regularisation of other ad hoc appointments. - (1) Any  

teacher, other than a principal who -  

(a) was appointed on ad hoc basis after January 3,1984 but not  

later than November 22, 1991 on a post -  

(i)  which after its due creation was never filled earlier, or  

(ii) which after its due creation was filled earlier and after its  

falling vacant, permission to fill it was obtained from the  

Director; or  

(iii) which came into being in pursuance of the terms of new  

affiliation or recognition granted to the College and has been  

continuously serving the College from the date of such ad hoc  

appointment up to the date of commencement of the Uttar  

Pradesh Higher Education Services Commission (Amendment)  

Act, 1992;  

(b) was appointed on ad hoc basis under sub-section (1) of  

Section 16 as it stood before its omission by the Act referred to in  

clause (a), whether or not the vacancy was notified by the  

Commission.  

(c) possessed on the date of such commencement, the  

qualifications required for regular appointment to the post or was  

given relaxation from such qualification under the provisions of  

the relevant Statutes in force on the date of such ad  

hoc appointment;  (d) [* * *]  

(e) has been found suitable for regular appointment by a  

Selection Committee constituted under sub-section (2);  

may be given substantive appointment by the Management of the  

College, if any substantive vacancy of the same cadre and grade  

in the same department is available on the date of commencement  

of the Act referred to in clause (a).  

(2) The Selection Committee consisting, the following members  

namely -  

(i) a member of the Commission nominated by the Government  

who shall be the Chairman;  

(ii) an officer not below the rank of Special Secretary, to be  

nominated by the Secretary to the Government of Uttar Pradesh  

in the Higher Education Department;

                C.A. Nos.917-918 etc.                                                                                                   Page 10 of 11    

(iii) the Director;  

shall consider the cases of every such ad hoc teacher and on  

being satisfied about his eligibility in view of the provisions of  

sub-section (1), and his work and conduct on the basis of his  

record, recommend his name to the Management of the College  

for appointment under sub-section (1).  

(3) to (5) xxx xxx xxx”  

23. A bare perusal of these provisions makes it quite clear that they  

deal with the procedure of ad hoc selection and regularization of those  

selected on an ad hoc basis. These provisions have absolutely no  

application to the appointment of part-time Lecturers or their  

regularization. In fact the statute does not at all provide for regularization  

of part-time Lecturers.  

24. There is also nothing on the record to indicate that the respondents  

had worked beyond 30 th  April, 1990.  It was only their submission that  

they had worked beyond April 1990 but nothing was placed on record to  

even give a suggestion that the respondents had worked beyond April  

1990.  

25. Under these circumstances, the question of regularization of the  

respondents including the correctness of the order passed by the  

Secretary, U. P. Government on 26 th  February, 2001 simply did not arise.  

The respondents had absolutely no right in their favour and the only  

option available to the High Court was to have dismissed the writ petition  

filed by the respondents and to have allowed the writ petition filed by the

                C.A. Nos.917-918 etc.                                                                                                   Page 11 of 11    

College and set aside the order dated 26 th  February, 2001 regularising the  

services of the respondents.  

Conclusion  

26. On the facts placed before us, we find that they were not correctly  

appreciated by the High Court. Consequently, we dispose of these appeals  

by holding that the respondents were appointed only on a part-time basis  

as Lecturers and not on an ad hoc basis; the respondents did not work in  

the College beyond April 1990; the respondents had no right to be  

regularised as Lecturers in the College and there is no merit in the claim  

made by the respondents.  

………………………J  

       (Madan B. Lokur)   

……………………..J     

                  (Deepak Gupta)   

New Delhi;  

December 5, 2017